Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.

[P F Tinmore]

The plan was not accepted by the Palestinian Arabs and Arab States on the ground that it violated the provisions of the United Nations Charter, which granted people the right to decide their own destiny."

That is correct. Why should the Palestinians agree to give half of their country to colonial settlers? There is no legal requirement for them to do so.

The Jews were not immigrants they were settlers.

Immigrants come to join the existing community.

Settlers come to replace the existing community.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Muslim-Americans discuss attitudes toward Israel​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: It was really every a question of Hostile Arab Palestinian having title to sovereign control over any territory.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: Whether it was or was not a decision for the Hostile Arab Palestinians to weigh in upon, is not the issue. Who said that it was their political subdivision to be concerned with. That question is not the issue.

Like has been said before, an entirely encyclopedia could be written to cover these subjects. But make no mistake. Whether the discussion are about the three times before 1923, that the Arab Palestinians decline to join in the establishment of self-governing institution (nation building) or today as the incite violence and torment hostilities, the realization is that the Arab Palestinians had no intention a century ago, and no intention today, of developing a productive economy for their people.

That is correct. Why should the Palestinians agree to give half of their country to colonial settlers? There is no legal requirement for them to do so.

(COMMENT)

Jewish immigration (1922 to 1948) was not an example of colonial settlers. They were NOT beholding and responsible to a colonial power. Nor is the current Jewish settlements in Area "C" an example of colonial settler activity. It was in compliance with the agreed upon Protocols Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

The Jews were not immigrants they were settlers.

(COMMENT)

Whether you call them settlers or not, you implication is totally misleading. The Allied Powers had made the decisions on immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Immigrants come to join the existing community.

(COMMENT)

Whether there was an intent, or not, to assimilate into the Arab Palestinian Community was altered by the ever increasing civil disruption and lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

By the mid-1920s, the Allied Powers had already allocated approximately three-quarters of the territory under the Mandate to Arabs of the Hejaz (making a Hashemite Emirate), a people who had sided with the Allied Powers.

The Hostile Arab Palestinians conveniently forget that point. The Hostile Arab Palestinians like to suggest that they are an Arab victim and that "apartheid" somehow cheated them out of something.

Settlers come to replace the existing community.

(COMMENT)

The question of replacement is simply an intentional political deception. In order to establish a safe rear area, free of marauding Hostile Arab Palestinians, it became necessary to displace 700K Arab Palestinians. That was largely because the Jewish people feared the Hostile Arab Palestinians would cause an internal security problem. They did anyway and still do today.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

It was in compliance with the agreed upon Protocols Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C" • which assigned Israel full civil and security control over Area “C".

That cannot and does not release Israel from its restrictions and obligations as an occupying power.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whether there was an intent, or not, to assimilate into the Arab Palestinian Community was altered by the ever increasing civil disruption and lack of cooperation on the part of the Arab Palestinians.

The Palestinians were under no obligation to take part in the settler colonial project.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whether you call them settlers or not, you implication is totally misleading. The Allied Powers had made the decisions on immigration and the establishment of the Jewish National Home.

Foreign interference.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whether the discussion are about the three times before 1923, that the Arab Palestinians decline to join in the establishment of self-governing institution (nation building) or today as the incite violence and torment hostilities, blah, blah, blah.

They did not need to. They were already the sovereigns in the territory and had a functioning society.

 

[P F Tinmore]

VIDC: The Renewal of the Palestinian Movement. A Transnational Unity from Below?​

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

That cannot and does not release Israel from its restrictions and obligations as an occupying power.

(COMMENT)

Just what "restrictions and obligation" are you talking about?

You know, of course, that "restrictions and obligation" change over time. So you have to be able to make a complete allegation by when, where and and what...

You also know that when the Arab Palestinian operates under the publicly announce conflict threat as a matter of policy, that the "restrictions and obligation" are reduced to meet the threat. For 70 years, the

Arab Palestinians who commit offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, which constitute an attempt on the life or limb of the Occupying Forces or administration, that presents a collective danger, or seriously damage the property of the Occupying Forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to detention pending prosecution.

This is the Geneva Convention, Article 68. This is a hand-in glove match to to Article 42 and 43 of The Hague Regulation.

The Palestinians were under no obligation to take part in the settler colonial project.

(COMMENT)

That is correct, but, they may not hinder actions taken pursuant to actions necessary under The Hague Regulation, the Geneva Convention, or the ANNEX III Protocol Concerning Civil Affairs • ARTICLE IV Special Provisions concerning Area "C."

They did not need to. They were already the sovereigns in the territory and had a functioning society.

(COMMENT)

At no time in the 800 years prior to the surrender of the Ottoman Empire have the Arab Palestinians exercised political sovereignty over any territory west of the Jordan River. At no time were the Arab Palestinians holding the supreme authority over the territorial integrity west of the Jordan River.

This periodic argument that you present suggesting the Arab Palestinians held some territorial sovereignty is simply incorrect. (With the possible exception of Area "A.")

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

At no time were the Arab Palestinians holding the supreme authority over the territorial integrity west of the Jordan River.

The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty has been violated. So says the UN and Palestine's Declaration of Independence.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Arab Palestinians who commit offense which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, blah, blah, blah.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary including armed struggle.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: I am not an attorney, but I have done my share of research on many of the topics discussed here today. And the one thing I can say, with some measure of confidence, is that the character of International Law is very "uncertain" or indeterminate. One of the most amazing of these indetermanent characteristics is the strength of enforcement of regulations overseen by international organizations. The greatest of these in the last 150 years is that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is not a governmental agency. The ICRC is "independent" and holds the characteristics of a neutral organization. And over the years the ICRC has become the preeminent International Humanitarian Organization which advocates on the applications of protections and provides assistance for victims of armed conflicts and similar theaters of violence. Perhaps no other organization of its kind has been the influence of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the interpretive foundation for prosecution of misdeeds in the combat arena then → the ICRC's implied interpretations of The Hague Regulation and the Geneva Conventions (with modern protocols). In contemporary history of warfare (conventional or otherwise) no body of law has been effected more by an "independent" nature of an organization than the ICRC in such matters. Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) defers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 in the matter of war crimes.

The Palestinians have the right to resist occupation by all means necessary including armed struggle.

(COMMENT)

That is entirely wrong. And do not bother to bringup those General Assembly Resolutions. No matter what you have been told, the non-binding pronouncements by the United Nations DO NOT trump The Hague Regulation or the Geneva Conventions that come down on the side of the Occupation Power. If the Hostile Arab Palestinian attempt to intentionally harm the Occupying Power, then the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. And I am specifically addressing:

​

◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX). 29 November 1974. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/34/44. 23 November 1979. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/35/35. 14 November 1980. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/36/9. 28 October 1981. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

BTW: All five of these non-binding resolutions were published before 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the entirety of its claims west of the Jordan River. The point being is that the territory was occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory and NOT Palestine (however you might define it). These claims might have been applicable to Jordan and not Israel.

The Palestinian's right to exercise their sovereignty has been violated. So says the UN and Palestine's Declaration of Independence.

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty that was violated, that would be a very different argument on different grounds. It is my pleasure to introduce you to the Legal Finding by the UN Legal Affairs Office:

​

Please read this very short Paragraph 1 carefully. While the Arab Palestinians insistently claim that they have some sovereignty over something, it is very clearly stated that:

◈. Palestine was not identified as:​

​

•. A state​

•. A country​

​

◈. Palestine did not have an authority that was identifiable as a government.​

​

◈. Until 2012, the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" (PLO).​

PART 3 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 22(2)
Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the de!nition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

Most Respectfully,
R

---

AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL LAW • Cambridge University Press • The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom © Jan Klabbers 2002

The Philosophy of International Law • Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © the several contributors, Edited by SAMANTHA BESSON AND JOHN TASIOULAS 2010

Principles of International Humanitarian Law • © Jonathan Crowe and Kylie Weston-Scheuber
Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013

Everyone’s Accountable: how non-state armed groups interact with international humanitarian law • By Lieutenant Colonel Tim Rutherford, Australian Army, Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1999.


.

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Restrictions and Obligations as an Occupying Power.
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

PREFACE: I am not an attorney, but I have done my share of research on many of the topics discussed here today. And the one thing I can say, with some measure of confidence, is that the character of International Law is very "uncertain" or indeterminate. One of the most amazing of these indetermanent characteristics is the strength of enforcement of regulations overseen by international organizations. The greatest of these in the last 150 years is that of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The ICRC is not a governmental agency. The ICRC is "independent" and holds the characteristics of a neutral organization. And over the years the ICRC has become the preeminent International Humanitarian Organization which advocates on the applications of protections and provides assistance for victims of armed conflicts and similar theaters of violence. Perhaps no other organization of its kind has been the influence of international humanitarian law (IHL) and the interpretive foundation for prosecution of misdeeds in the combat arena then → the ICRC's implied interpretations of The Hague Regulation and the Geneva Conventions (with modern protocols). In contemporary history of warfare (conventional or otherwise) no body of law has been effected more by an "independent" nature of an organization than the ICRC in such matters. Even the International Criminal Court (ICC) defers to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 in the matter of war crimes.

View attachment 628944

(COMMENT)

That is entirely wrong. And do not bother to bringup those General Assembly Resolutions. No matter what you have been told, the non-binding pronouncements by the United Nations DO NOT trump The Hague Regulation or the Geneva Conventions that come down on the side of the Occupation Power. If the Hostile Arab Palestinian attempt to intentionally harm the Occupying Power, then the Arab Palestinians are in the wrong. And I am specifically addressing:

​

◈. A/RES/3246 (XXIX). 29 November 1974. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/33/24 29 November 1978. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, particularly armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/34/44. 23 November 1979. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/35/35. 14 November 1980. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

​

◈. A/RES/36/9. 28 October 1981. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;​

BTW: All five of these non-binding resolutions were published before 1988 when the Hashemite Kingdom abandon the entirety of its claims west of the Jordan River. The point being is that the territory was occupied Jordanian Sovereign Territory and NOT Palestine (however you might define it). These claims might have been applicable to Jordan and not Israel.
View attachment 628945

(COMMENT)

If the Arab Palestinians had sovereignty that was violated, that would be a very different argument on different grounds. It is my pleasure to introduce you to the Legal Finding by the UN Legal Affairs Office:

View attachment 628958

​

Please read this very short Paragraph 1 carefully. While the Arab Palestinians insistently claim that they have some sovereignty over something, it is very clearly stated that:

◈. Palestine was not identified as:​

​

•. A state​

•. A country​

​

◈. Palestine did not have an authority that was identifiable as a government.​

​

◈. Until 2012, the designation "Palestine" was used in place of the "Palestinian Liberation Organization" (PLO).​

PART 3 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW
Article 22(2)
Nullum crimen sine lege

The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the de!nition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

Most Respectfully,
R

---

AN INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL LAW • Cambridge University Press • The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge  , United Kingdom © Jan Klabbers 2002

The Philosophy of International Law • Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © the several contributors, Edited by SAMANTHA BESSON AND JOHN TASIOULAS 2010

Principles of International Humanitarian Law • © Jonathan Crowe and Kylie Weston-Scheuber
Published by Edward Elgar Publishing Limited 2013

Everyone’s Accountable: how non-state armed groups interact with international humanitarian law • By Lieutenant Colonel Tim Rutherford, Australian Army, Royal Military College, Duntroon, in 1999.


.View attachment 628964

The League of Nations and others determined that Palestine is a state. The Mandate for Palestine document called Palestine a country many times. Article 80 of the UN Charter states:

...nothing in this Chapter shall be construed in or of itself to alter in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or the terms of existing international instruments to which Members of the United Nations may respectively be parties.

The UN has no authority to change that.
--------------

A/RES/3236 (XXIX) 22 November 1974

Recognizing that the Palestinian people is entitled to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations,

Expressing its grave concern that the Palestinian people has been prevented from enjoying its inalienable rights, in particular its right to self-determination,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Recalling its relevant resolutions which affirm the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination,

1. Reaffirms the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people in Palestine, including:

(a) The right to self-determination without external interference;

(b) The right to national independence and sovereignty;

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of
the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty,
independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts
of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region
constitute a serious threat to international peace and security,

3. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign
and colonial domination to self-determination, national in-
dependence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference;

12. Strongly condemns the continued violations of the
human rights of the peoples stilI under colonial and foreign
domination and alien subjugation, the continuation of the
illegal occupation of Namibia, and South Africa's attempts
to dismember its Territory, the perpetuation of the racist
minority regime in southern Africa and the denial to the
Palestinian people of their inalienable national rights;

18. Strongly condemns those Governments that do not
recognize the right to self-determination and independence
of all peoples stilI under colonial and foreign domination
and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the
Palestinian people;

UN Resolution 37/43

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your posting 3013 is so screwed-up with misleading and false information as to be an intentional deception.

The UN did not change anything. Not a single thing. The use to the term state did not apply to anything the Arab Palestinian held sovereign over. Article 80 applies to independently govern institutions when it says "state." It did not apply to any entity unable to put a functioning government together. The Arab Palestinians rejected every invitation to become party to building of self-governing institutions.

Another point is that no-one denied the Arab Palestinian the Right of Self-Determination. The Right of Self-Determination does not mean they get a state of their own. They still have to assemble it, with all the working pieces.

The Arab Palestinians did not have anything resembling a government that carried out the functions of government.

The Arab Palestinians are NOT under colonial domination. They are a corrupt country which openly advocates murder and mayhem. Israel is what it is. If you turn the Arab Palestinians loose on the world, there is no reasonable expectation of any long term peace. When the Israelis unilaterally gave the Gaza Strip control, they immediately turned into a government that has the singular purpose of terrorism.

None of the 5 General Assembly Resolutions are binding or constitute law.
You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[P F Tinmore]

RE: Palestinian Talks, lectures, & interviews.
SUBTOPIC: Interpretation
⁜→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Your posting 3013 is so screwed-up with misleading and false information as to be an intentional deception.

The UN did not change anything. Not a single thing. The use to the term state did not apply to anything the Arab Palestinian held sovereign over. Article 80 applies to independently govern institutions when it says "state." It did not apply to any entity unable to put a functioning government together. The Arab Palestinians rejected every invitation to become party to building of self-governing institutions.

Another point is that no-one denied the Arab Palestinian the Right of Self-Determination. The Right of Self-Determination does not mean they get a state of their own. They still have to assemble it, with all the working pieces.

The Arab Palestinians did not have anything resembling a government that carried out the functions of government.

The Arab Palestinians are NOT under colonial domination. They are a corrupt country which openly advocates murder and mayhem. Israel is what it is. If you turn the Arab Palestinians loose on the world, there is no reasonable expectation of any long term peace. When the Israelis unilaterally gave the Gaza Strip control, they immediately turned into a government that has the singular purpose of terrorism.

None of the 5 General Assembly Resolutions are binding or constitute law.
You are grasping at straws.

Most Respectfully,
R

So many Israeli talking points. Did they give you a book or something?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Exposing Colonial Peace-Building from Palestine to Ireland​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Opening Panel: Palestinians Demand Right of Return - Return Week 2021​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ep. 48 - Erasure with Nerdeen Kiswani​

 

[P F Tinmore]

Ep. 43 - Amnesty International "Antisemitic terrorists"​

 

[rylah]

So many Israeli talking points. Did they give you a book or something?

That's not an argument, you just can't refute anything.

Can mindless trolling compensate for that?